APHC010688532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 35678/2025 Between: 1. MYLA NAVEEN, S/O MYLA DASU LATE AGE.30 YEARS, OCC. FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0845027, UPPUGUNDURU VILLAGE NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL (NG PADU) PRAKASAM DIST. PIN.523186 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST-522237 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DIST., AT ONGOLE. PIN.523002 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DIST. PIN.523002 4. THE TAHSILDAR, N.G.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. PIN.523183 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3d respondent vide Rc.l/2102/2025 dt.2-12-2025 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of the No.0845027, Uppugunduru Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal (NG Padu) Prakasam Dist., without assigning any 2 VS,J W.P.No.35678 of 2025 valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt.2-12-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.l/2102/2025 dt:2-12-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.0845027, Uppugunduru Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal (NG Padu) Prakasam Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.35678 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.l/2102/2025 dt.2-12- 2025 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of the No.0845027, Uppugunduru Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal (NG Padu) Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt.2-12-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual….” 2. Brief facts of the case as follows: a) The petitioner’s late father was originally appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0845027 situated at Uppugunduru Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal(NG Padu), Prakasam District. After the death of his father, the petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer on compassionate grounds vide proceedings Rc.CS2(6)/13/2019 dt.31.05.2019 by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- as trade deposit on 24.06.2019. However, no authorization has been issued in the name of the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has been paying renewal fee from time to time, including on 06.05.2025 for further 4 VS,J W.P.No.35678 of 2025 renewal. The further case of the petitioner is that in spite of the subsequent renewal of the authorization, the authorities have withheld the issuance of any authorization in favour of the petitioner, though he continued to run the Fair Price Shop. b) While the matter stood thus, on 04.11.2025 at about 12.00 noon, the Additional Food Inspector, Ongole along with the Village Revenue Officer, Uppugunduru Village, inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and allegedly found a variation of PDS Rice (+)206 Kgs rice excess and 14 (1/2 kg) packets of sugar in excess. Basing on the report submitted by the Additional Food Inspector, Ongole on 10.11.2025, the 3rd respondent issued a Show-Cause Notice on 15.11.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven (7) days from the date of the receipt of the said notice duly framing a single charge. For which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 26.11.2025 duly stating that with regard to the excess of 90 Kgs of rice, the petitioner’s mother and other relatives have put their thumb impressions and left the stock in the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and went to do their agricultural works. With regard to excess of 28 Kgs of rice, the petitioner has stated that the said excess occurred due to slipperiness rice which has fallen on the floor from the bags at the time of lifting of the rice through the vehicle from MLS point into the shop and has also stated that the remaining excess has occurred as he was receiving less quantity of rice from the MLS point itself. 5 VS,J W.P.No.35678 of 2025 c) However, the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the 3rd respondent even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension vide order dated 02.12.2025. Challenging which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered, as the petitioner himself has admitted that he retained commodities after taking the authentication of the beneficiaries through electronic Point of Sale, thereby violated Clause 12(e) of the Control Order 2018 and as such the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension. However, the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 is only a suspension pending enquiry. 5. The High Court of Judicature (for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) at Hyderabad in Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.1, wherein it was held at paras 3 to 6 as follows: “3. At the hearing, Sri A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, Guntur [2005 (1) ALD 847], in support of his submission that if the enquiry is not concluded by the licensing authority within 90 days, 1 2015 (3) ALD 102 6 VS,J W.P.No.35678 of 2025 the suspension has to be revoked or set aside. I have carefully considered the said judgment. 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima [1996 (1) APLJ 285], a Division Bench of this Court has held that the maximum period of suspension of a dealer can be 90 days and that consequently, if the proceedings are not concluded by the Revenue Divisional Officer within 90 days, suspension has to be revoked or set aside. 5. I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Joint Collector (supra). In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the order of suspension based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab [AIR 1982 (SC) 65] by holding that as per the ratio laid down in the said judgment, if the enquiry is not completed within 90 days, the suspension shall stand automatically revoked. The Division Bench analysed the facts in M/s. Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (supra) and observed that in that case, the licence itself contained a clause that the suspension can be made for a maximum period of 90 days. The Division Bench has accordingly clarified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order passed by him did not lay down the general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension can only be for a period of 90 days. In that context, the Division Bench has made the following observation - "But we must also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry". 6. On a careful analysis of the judgments in M/s. Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (supra) and Joint Collector (supra), I respectfully 7 VS,J W.P.No.35678 of 2025 disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D. Sambasiva Rao (supra). As noted hereinbefore, the Division Bench itself has clarified that no general proposition could be laid down that in every case, the maximum period of suspension could be only 90 days and that what is reasonable period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors.” 6. Though the impugned order was passed on 02.12.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite period and there has been no commencement of operation of the enquiry against the petitioner till date. In view of the above legal proposition, the respondent authorities shall expeditiously conclude the enquiry within 90 days from the date issuance of the impugned order as the order of suspension cannot be allowed to be continued for an indefinite period. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of 90 days from the date issuance of the impugned order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law failing which, the impugned order, dated 02.12.2025, gets automatically set aside without any further reference to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 24.12.2025 KGR